Michael-Bay Movie Reviews

Why does this movie, in my opinion, deserves five stars ? Because, if you're a film noir fan, you cannot be but astonished by the treatment of the subject. Rudolph Maté's D.O.A. is a B movie, alright, but a movie you have to possess if you are a movie lover.

Firstly, there is the musical score, signed by his majesty Dimitri Tiomkin. Imagine that, in the middle of D.O.A., Tiomkin and Maté have dared to give to the music an unusual role one would rather find in comic movies. When Edmond O'Brien arrives in San Francisco, he's surrounded by beautiful girls in his hotel's lobby. Everytime he's admiring one of these ladies, the orchestra whistles ! Quite unique in a film noir !

Then, the rythm is suffocating and won't let you breathe at all. Apart of Edmond O'Brien, Neville Brand is outstanding in the role of a psychotic bodyguard.

As bonus features, the Master Movies in my possession, offers a few filmographies and critical articles. No english subtitles. Sound and images are below-average to average, so don't hesitate to check the Image or Roan Group DVD.

A DVD for your library.

D.O.A. starts off with one hell of a bang a hulky and overwhelmed Edmund O'Brien musters his way into a ploice station. As h emakes his way through the marble paved floors and pass the columns and the passage ways he finally arrives at the end of his journey. The journey to get him there is one that is so tight and compelling that when O'Brien announces that he has already been murdered the film turns into to a stark tail of death and lust told in flashback! O'Brien is Frank Bigelow an accountant who takes a trip to forget about his lover and just have a casual afair or two while in San Francisco. While in San Francisco heh finds a few hot ladies at his hotel and then he is whisked away to a Jazz club where he is poisoned and there isn't as antidote! the film moves ahead at whiplash speed from here. Shadows are cast over O'Briens hulking frame and sweat pours over his brow as he begins his trek to find his killer. th eplot and dialogue is as tight as any top grade Noir. But the most shoking element of the whole film is O'Brien he never once lets the viewer down he follows through with pure human emotion and if it seems like he is over actingn to some he is just playing a real life scenario oout on screen if you wer just poisoned would you be calm! Excellent Noir's have all the elements of the past from the sharp cut suits to the sheen of the telephones and with D.O.A. O'Brien seems to make all these elements seem ever more stark and fleeting with the fact that O'Brien is dying his precious reunion with the love he left for a good time seems more like fate instead of like the last time he will be in complete bliss! O'Brein is so powerful and commanding that i nver wanted him to die even though i knew it was inevitable now that makes the film as a whole a masterpiece!

A man named Frank Bigelow (Edmund O'Brian) shows up at Los Angeles police station to report a murder: his own. Frank is dying of luminous toxin poisoning. He recounts to police the incredible story that brought him to be at the brink of death in this police station in a strange city. Just a few days ago, he was a small business owner in a little town called Banning. He had an adoring girlfriend, Paula Gibson (Pamela Britton), who was also his personal secretary. But Frank had cold feet about marrying Paula and decided to take a little vacation to San Francisco to give himself some air. Paula called to tell him that a man named Phillips was desperately trying to reach him, but the name didn't ring a bell. The next day, Frank found out that he had been fatally and irreversibly poisoned. Frank's increasingly frantic search for the identity and motivation of his murderer takes him to two cities, into the criminal underworld, and onto the wrong end of several pistols before all is done.

Rudolph Mate's "D.O.A." is a film noir classic. And it takes the cynical view typical of the genre. Frank is a man whose fate is entirely beyond his control. As the audience roots for Frank to solve the mystery and find his murderer, fate unabashedly mocks his efforts. Frank is a dying man; what earthly difference will it make if he finds his killer? Whatever Frank does, the result will be the same. And it's all because he notarized a bill of sale...one out of hundreds of bills of sales. Who knew what being a notary could lead to? But for a movie with such a cynical story to tell, "D.O.A." has always been immensely popular. I think that's because Frank Bigelow is an "everyman" who rises to the occasion when difficult circumstances require it. He's not too smart and not too dumb. He has a nice girlfriend...to whom he isn't entirely faithful. He's basically a good guy, works hard, but imperfect. And when fate deals him a bad deal, he finds within him a strength and determination that even he may not have known he had. He's going to solve the mystery if it's the last thing he does. Even though it will be the last thing he does. Edmund O'Brian does an admirable job of conveying Frank's imperfection, his initial incredulity at his predicament, and then his determination when he stares reality in the face and decides to take matters into his own hands, to the extent that he can. The opening scene in which Frank enters the police station to report his own murder is a stroke of genius. What a way to hook an audience! The only fault that I find with the film are the ridiculous noises that we hear every time Frank spies an attractive woman. Their tone is completely inappropriate to the film, and they are a real blot on Dimitri Tiomkin's otherwise excellent score.

The DVD (This refers to the Roan Group DVD only): This film looks too contrasty and lacking in subtle tonality to me. Not having seen the film on the silver screen, I don't know if it was originally like that, if there was a problem with the print, or if it's a bad transfer. But the film stocks available in 1950 were technologically much better than this DVD would lead you to believe. The main menu on the disc doesn't show up before the movie. The disc starts to play as soon as it is inserted into the player, so you have to either hit the menu button on your remote or get yourself onto your couch quickly. There are two bonus features: An interview with actress Beverly Campbell (now Beverly Garland) in which she describes her experience being blacklisted by the Hollywood studios for several years following her appearance in "D.O.A." And there are a few pages of text that you can read about film noir in general and "D.O.A." in particular. Beverly Garland's story is interesting, but the DVD seems to be put together in a slipshod manner.

I disliked Masterpiece Theater's film based on the book Goodnight Mr. Tom for several reasons. Firstly, the characters were not portrayed in the movie as I had imagined them while reading the book. Mrs. Beech is portrayed in the book as an over-religious, ill, debauched woman who abuses her son ruthlessly. However, in the film, instead of behaving mercilessly towards Willie, she tells him "what a beautiful baby he was," and even cooks him his favorite meal. Secondly, many crucial parts of the book, such as the play, were omitted from the film. The play was essential to Willie's development as a character; and it illustrated one of the most important themes in the book-life must go on no matter what. Lastly, important characters in the book, such as Carrie, were not in the movie. Carrie is a meaningful character because she is a feminist who teaches us to always stand up for what we believe in, regardless of what other people think. In conclusion, the film Goodnight Mr. Tom, failed to capture the essence of the novel, and I would not recommend it to anyone who has read the book.

goodnight mister tom was an enjoyable novel and video. it provided an insight into issues which are not as familiar and talked about as they should be. Good Night Mister Tom is a novel which focusues on the stresses and pressures faced by children affected by war, poverty and child abuse.
It deals with 9 year old William who is a victim of child abuse, and is taken in by a man in a country town of britain after his mother is unable to take care of him during the war. Mister tom provides the love and care william deserves by simply treating him as he should be .

I really enjoyed Masterpiece Theatre's film adaptation of the book GOODNIGHT, MR. TOM because it portrayed the characters just as I had imagined them. For instance, the book described Willie as a small, quiet boy, and in the film, he is portrayed by a boy who speaks little and is much smaller than others his age. In the book, Zach was described as an outgoing, "look before you leap" sort of boy; in the film he is portrayed by a boy who talks a lot, always wears red, and says things like, "You do know all about sex, don't you?" and, "He chews his food--I usually just put it in my mouth and swallow" (these are not exact quotes). Finally, Mr. Tom is described in the book as a gruff old man who is soft inside. Similarly, in the first few scenes of the movie, Mr. Tom responds to the vicar's questions in a series of one word answers, yet has a tender, sad look on his face when he hangs Willie's coat on the hook he'd constructed for his own son, who is now dead. Although the movie necessarily changes some scenes and leaves some out, I recommend it to anyone who has read the book since overall, it remains true to the author's characters and themes. I also recommend this movie to those who have never read the book, since it tells a dark yet heartwarming story about violence, loss, grieving and recovery as they pertain to both children and adults, to both child abuse and the second World War.

I was just culling my dvd collection and had this movie in the "out" box before I thought I'd have a look at it again. I'm glad I did. It is a wonderful 'time capsule' of Swingin' Sixties London filmed entirely on location. This is a great companion piece to Shawn Levy's book "Ready, Steady, Go!" It shows the fashions, furniture, cars and heads of the 60s but I don't know if this is a send-up of the "scene" or whether it really is the "scene". Either way it's kinda giddy. Two Northern girls arrive in London with high hopes of making it. After a dodgey start and having their money stolen, one (Redgrave) becomes a pop star and the other (Tushingham) a photograhers model. They have personality clashes, a few adventures with local weirdos, realize that there is no place like home, pack it in and take the train back up North. That's basically it. Not really funny anymore (the humor is embarrassing in some places) but great eye candy for jaded baby boomers like myself. The Anchor bay dvd has a good wide screen picture from a nice print. It is NOT anamorphic. There are absolutely no extras on the disc... not even a trailer. I think this obscure little film deserved at least a commentary from some of those concerned. I really enjoyed Spencer Davis' comments on Anchor Bay's "The Ghost Goes Gear" dvd..... another overlooked little gem. Not a classic by any means, but a charmimg little slice of the Sixties.

If you love slapstick films or anything from the 1960s, this DVD is for you. This obscure film deserves to be seen and enjoyed by all lovers of the Swinging Sixties.

Rita Tushingham and Lynn Redgrave (Mollie Sugden from "Are You Being Served?" probably got the idea for her character's wigs after seeing Redgrave here) are two girls who decide to make their mark in Swinging London. This film was shot entirely on location and is filled with wonderful shots of Carnaby Street and 1960's London.

Tushingham, who appeared so vulnerable in "The Knack...and How to Get It", really shines in this comedic roll, especially in a scene where she sneaks into the apartment of the man who is trying to seduce a drunk Redgrave. The resulting sabotage is a pleasure to watch.

Anchor Bay released this in widesceen but there are no additional extras on it. After viewers see this, they'll not only wish that there had been some extras, they'll also wish that additional movies about these characters had been made.

This has to be one of the forgotten gems of the 60's. Hilariously funny, a riot from start to finish and it captures swinging London in an "Austin Powers" sort of way. Being from the UK myself its hard to believe that it's not available over here. If you want an easy to watch and very funny slice of 1960's Britain then this is the film for you.

I love the DVD as a Bucs fan but several aspects of the Editorial Review are wrong:

"The 2003 release will contain an unprecedented 3 full hours of Super Bowl coverage including every series from the game as originally broadcast"-- Not true. Several "meaningless" series have been edited out of the game, the Raiders last possession of the first half is gone for example. I belive one entire Bucs series is gone as well. Also not true the "as broadcast bit". While some series are missng entire plays have been excised at various points- punt and kick returns are often gone for example. Also, you get the football [in fast forward] view of the game with all the huddling up parts gone. This isn't bad unless you wanted to hear more of the audio from the broadcast teams when they do analysis in between plays.

"See every series of the game as broadcast on national TV, with AFC and NFC radio broadcast overlay" Also wrong. In addition to not being as broadcast, only the Bucs radio track is on the disk. I really wanted to hear the Raiders announcers crying over their defeat but won't get that joy.

In sum, many of the features that I wnated to get aren't on this disk but, if you are a Bucs fan, it is well worth having to relive the glory of the game, albeit chopped up.

When the description said "audio commentary," I took that to mean that maybe you could switch between the AFC and NFC radio broadcasts. I've bought NFL DVDs where you can do that. And maybe even have a third audio track for the TV broadcast. But, the AFC and NFC radio broadcasts are on ONE audio channel with no John Madden and Al Michaels around. So, don't throw away that your VHS recording of the Super Bowl just yet.

On the positive side, you DO get virtually EVERY play of the Super Bowl (I think they might have skipped some punts which didn't affect the game, which is good). So, the whole game is edited to a little under an HOUR. Also, the NFL Films version of the whole Tampa Bay season also clocks in just under an hour.

Also, as a "student" of football, I also liked the pre and post-game shows which broke down plays and explained what happened. Ron Jaworski and Merrill Hoge are good at doing their homework.

There's also a couple of other documentaries about media day and international broadcasts of the Super Bowl.

Not a spectacular sports DVD (I'm not sure if it exists yet) but a pretty good one (if you're not a Raiders fan).

I love the content (highlights, commentary, etc.), and the bonus features. Watching the super bowl without commercials and without huddles was a bit dizzying. I wish this had been released in a widescreen version, as the 4x3 DVD's are a bit dated, and don't work well on my 57" widescreen TV. All in all, a good DVD, but it could have been better.

THE PHILADELPHIA EXPERIMENT is a pretty good, solid piece of B-Movie sci fi. Loosely based on actual events during World War II, the U.S. government tests a naval battleship to see if it can disappear from radar by using high powered electromagentic energy. The writers, producer (John Carpenter i.e. HALLOWEEN), and director, have used these events to create an entertaining time travel story in which during the experiment, two of the crewmen are transported through time to 1984 and must find their way back. At the same time, the experiment in 1943 is affecting a similar experiment in 1984 Nevada conducted by the same scientist, Dr. James Longstreet, (Eric Christams as the elder Dr. Longstreet in 1984 Nevada, and Miles McNamara as the young Dr. Longstreet in 1943 Philadelphia) creating a vortex and distruption in the space/time continuim. There are characters you care about, decent if not conventional time travel plot devices, just the right amount of special effects, the usual government personnel chasing the innocent time travel victim(s), and a love story thrown in for good measure. Michael Pare shows some pretty good emotional depth as David Herdeg, one of the crewmen sent into the future and he and Nancy Allen as Allison Hayes have pretty good onscreen chemistry. Bobby Di Cicco has a great supporting role as the other crewmen sent along with Micheal Pare. He practically reprises a role he played in the Steven Speilberg WWII comedy film "1941" as he uses the dancing skills he learned during the filming of that movie and uses it in the opening scenes of 'EXPERIMENT (Perhaps it was an in-joke?). Overall, an entertaining sci fi, time travel film that delivers.
Movie should be noteworthy because released the same year he produced this movie, John Carpenter wrote and directed STARMAN with almost the same kind of pathos and romance/road trip film. Instead of a a man far from his time period (PHILADELPHIA EXPERIMENT), we have an extraterrestial far from home (STARMAN).

As implied in the name there is an experiment in Philadelphia (1943) to make a navel ship invisible to the enemy. The experiment goes beyond its parameters and sends the ship into the future. David Herdeg (Michael Paré) and Jim Parker (Bobby Di Cicco)
Jump ship in the process. What will become of them? Will this time travel effect others and can they get back? If not will they adapt?
It can not hurt to have a relationship with Nancy Allen you may not want to go back.

The story is based on a real conspiracy theory to cover-up the real thing. Even tough there are records to show that the destroyer was no where near the aria at the time, that just fuels the fire for the conspiracy.

The Philadelphia experiment is a classic in the Sci-Fi genre. What makes this movie really interesting though, is not the action, plot, or special effects. It is the fact that this movie is based on an actual military experiment. During an experiment to make a ship invisible to radar, the ship did just that, but it also became invisible to the naked eye as well. This may or may not be true, but it does make the story more interesting when this is considered. Even without it, it is a thought provoking story, with good visual effects.

THE PHILADELPHIA EXPERIMENT is a pretty good, solid piece of B-Movie sci fi. Loosely based on actual events during World War II, the U.S. government tests a naval battleship to see if it can disappear from radar by using high powered electromagentic energy. The writers, producer (John Carpenter i.e. HALLOWEEN), and director, have used these events to create an entertaining time travel story in which during the experiment, two of the crewmen are transported through time to 1984 and must find their way back. At the same time, the experiment in 1943 is affecting a similar experiment in 1984 Nevada conducted by the same scientist, Dr. James Longstreet, (Eric Christams as the elder Dr. Longstreet in 1984 Nevada, and Miles McNamara as the young Dr. Longstreet in 1943 Philadelphia) creating a vortex and distruption in the space/time continuim. There are characters you care about, decent if not conventional time travel plot devices, just the right amount of special effects, the usual government personnel chasing the innocent time travel victim(s), and a love story thrown in for good measure. Michael Pare shows some pretty good emotional depth as David Herdeg, one of the crewmen sent into the future and he and Nancy Allen as Allison Hayes have pretty good onscreen chemistry. Bobby Di Cicco has a great supporting role as the other crewmen sent along with Micheal Pare. He practically reprises a role he played in the Steven Speilberg WWII comedy film "1941" as he uses the dancing skills he learned during the filming of that movie and uses it in the opening scenes of 'EXPERIMENT (Perhaps it was an in-joke?). Overall, an entertaining sci fi, time travel film that delivers.
Movie should be noteworthy because released the same year he produced this movie, John Carpenter wrote and directed STARMAN with almost the same kind of pathos and romance/road trip film. Instead of a a man far from his time period (PHILADELPHIA EXPERIMENT), we have an extraterrestial far from home (STARMAN).

As implied in the name there is an experiment in Philadelphia (1943) to make a navel ship invisible to the enemy. The experiment goes beyond its parameters and sends the ship into the future. David Herdeg (Michael Paré) and Jim Parker (Bobby Di Cicco)
Jump ship in the process. What will become of them? Will this time travel effect others and can they get back? If not will they adapt?
It can not hurt to have a relationship with Nancy Allen you may not want to go back.

The story is based on a real conspiracy theory to cover-up the real thing. Even tough there are records to show that the destroyer was no where near the aria at the time, that just fuels the fire for the conspiracy.

The Philadelphia experiment is a classic in the Sci-Fi genre. What makes this movie really interesting though, is not the action, plot, or special effects. It is the fact that this movie is based on an actual military experiment. During an experiment to make a ship invisible to radar, the ship did just that, but it also became invisible to the naked eye as well. This may or may not be true, but it does make the story more interesting when this is considered. Even without it, it is a thought provoking story, with good visual effects.

THE PHILADELPHIA EXPERIMENT is a pretty good, solid piece of B-Movie sci fi. Loosely based on actual events during World War II, the U.S. government tests a naval battleship to see if it can disappear from radar by using high powered electromagentic energy. The writers, producer (John Carpenter i.e. HALLOWEEN), and director, have used these events to create an entertaining time travel story in which during the experiment, two of the crewmen are transported through time to 1984 and must find their way back. At the same time, the experiment in 1943 is affecting a similar experiment in 1984 Nevada conducted by the same scientist, Dr. James Longstreet, (Eric Christams as the elder Dr. Longstreet in 1984 Nevada, and Miles McNamara as the young Dr. Longstreet in 1943 Philadelphia) creating a vortex and distruption in the space/time continuim. There are characters you care about, decent if not conventional time travel plot devices, just the right amount of special effects, the usual government personnel chasing the innocent time travel victim(s), and a love story thrown in for good measure. Michael Pare shows some pretty good emotional depth as David Herdeg, one of the crewmen sent into the future and he and Nancy Allen as Allison Hayes have pretty good onscreen chemistry. Bobby Di Cicco has a great supporting role as the other crewmen sent along with Micheal Pare. He practically reprises a role he played in the Steven Speilberg WWII comedy film "1941" as he uses the dancing skills he learned during the filming of that movie and uses it in the opening scenes of 'EXPERIMENT (Perhaps it was an in-joke?). Overall, an entertaining sci fi, time travel film that delivers.
Movie should be noteworthy because released the same year he produced this movie, John Carpenter wrote and directed STARMAN with almost the same kind of pathos and romance/road trip film. Instead of a a man far from his time period (PHILADELPHIA EXPERIMENT), we have an extraterrestial far from home (STARMAN).

As implied in the name there is an experiment in Philadelphia (1943) to make a navel ship invisible to the enemy. The experiment goes beyond its parameters and sends the ship into the future. David Herdeg (Michael Paré) and Jim Parker (Bobby Di Cicco)
Jump ship in the process. What will become of them? Will this time travel effect others and can they get back? If not will they adapt?
It can not hurt to have a relationship with Nancy Allen you may not want to go back.

The story is based on a real conspiracy theory to cover-up the real thing. Even tough there are records to show that the destroyer was no where near the aria at the time, that just fuels the fire for the conspiracy.

The Philadelphia experiment is a classic in the Sci-Fi genre. What makes this movie really interesting though, is not the action, plot, or special effects. It is the fact that this movie is based on an actual military experiment. During an experiment to make a ship invisible to radar, the ship did just that, but it also became invisible to the naked eye as well. This may or may not be true, but it does make the story more interesting when this is considered. Even without it, it is a thought provoking story, with good visual effects.

It's not bad, exactly. Despite occasional departures from the story it follows most of the essential points. But, like so many other adaptations of Du Maurier novels, it fails to realize that while her atmospheres are gothic, they are not depressing. Much of Frenchman's Creek on paper is sunny and joyous, not bleak. The conematography here makes it look like it is perpetually overcast, and it shouldn't. The same applies to the characterizations. Anthony Delon is mysterious, but not warm and normal and human as he should be, Dona is missing her sense of fun. It's all a little dreary after a while.

Tara Fitzgerald makes a lovely Dona and Anthony Delon portrays the Frenchman pirate of the title, Jean Aubery, to perfection. In fact all the players were selected admirably: Rockingham is disturbingly sly and manipulative, William combines the right combination of sex appeal with devoted servitude and Harry exudes vulnerability and inner strength as Dona's husband. Just like Du Maurier intended them to be, fleshed out from the pages of her novel and set on the lonely wild coast of Cornwall.

My main objection to this film, if it can be called an objection, is that it fails to tell the story of the novel. Yes, the characters are not changed and the local is the same. What differs is the setting--this story is driven by the religious revolution of 1688--Catholic King James has fled to France as Protestant William of Orange marches in from the Netherlands. Lady Dona is a Catholic fleeing the eventual destruction of the court of which she is alligned. France has declared war on England at this crucial time and so the pirate is, in a sense doing his duty, rather than ravaging the English coast simply for his own amusement as he does in the novel. Navaronne, Lady Dona's estate is not the idyllic refuge of the book, it too has transformed into a battle ground where corpses litter the roads patrolled by befeathered Orangeman troops.

There are far too many differences in this film version to comment on individually, so instead I will say that it simply does not faithfully adhere to the story told in the novel. The adventure and romance remains, but even this is twisted to appeal to a more modern day audience. Most disturbing was the addition of tension between Dona and her young daughter which unfortunately weaves its way into the dinner scene at the film's climax. The producers most likely and sadly felt that the notion of a woman wanting to escape the life she thought at one time satisfying not meaningful enough for audiences who expect the Lifetime Channel's grander causes. There is none of the frivolity that makes Du Maurier's work a delightful escape albeit with a philosophical tone.

Despite its plot differences, the film still entertains. Lady Dona remains a free spirit encumbered by her station in life. As much as I enjoyed Anthony Devon's Jean,I would have liked to have seen what he would have brought to the man-without-a-cause depicted in the book. Whether this is how Du Maurier intended Frenchman's Creek to flow, the film provides an enjoyable two hours of entertainment.

Any similarities between this movie and DuMaurier's novel are purely coincidental. I gave this film version four stars only because it does not have the sappy costumes and melodramatic acting of the Joan Fontaine version. This film version is far removed from the DuMaurier's novel. To begin with, the film's historical setting is not the Restoration, but the court of King James. There was a reason why DuMaurier set her story during the Restoration - London at that time was rich in atmosphere. It was the court of Charles II. There were excesses of appetite. Charles had a mistress for every day of the week and the city reeked of humanity caught up in decadence beyond imagination. The two Donas are similar in that they want to escape, but for different reasons. DuMaurier's Dona is turning 30. She has reached a mid-life crisis (remember, 30 was considered old in the 1660s). Her escape from London comes from a disgust of what she has become under the city's atmosphere. Dona needs to stop and find out who she really is and what she wants from life. So she goes to Cornwall. In the film version, Dona escapes a London caught up in political turmoil. King James has left London and Catholics and Protestants are again close to civil war. She wants to escape this and she's "sick of London". This Dona wants some peace and quiet. Tara Fitzgerald makes a good heroine, but at times she is too brooding, too serious, too irritating. Her counterpart at least had a sense of humour and took pleasure in rebelling against the established gentry in Cornwall. Fleet and Dutton who play Harry St. Columb and Rockingham, respectively, are wonderful. Tim Dutton is wonderful as the villainously repulsive Rockingham. Fleet plays Harry well as the bumbling husband. Anthony Delon as the french pirate Jean Aubrey is quite good. He has the easy, matter of fact, mysterious charm of DuMaurier's pirate. If you have not read Frenchman's Creek, this movie does stand on its own. The characters are well developed, the pace of the movie is good and the music compliments the scenery and characters. There is adventure, romance, villains and a damsel who can handle herself in distress. However, if you are a purist when it comes to watching a movie based upon a novel, you may be less satisfied with this version.

I like Alec Baldwin and I like George Carlin. But i think the three best Thomas tapes are Thomas Breakes the Rules, Better Late than never, and my absolute favorite Tenders and Turntables.
This tape was the first of Alec Baldwin's and the tapes sort of changed then. He's a good narrator but they've changed Thomas isn't the same anymore. I would recommend the early tapes instead. And why did they redo the Ringo Starr ones.

This is a great video! It's one of my favorites, along with Thomas and the Special Letter, The Gallant Old Engine, and Trust Thomas.
In "Cranky Bugs", a new crane named Cranky comes to work at the docks and causes trouble for Thomas and Percy. But, when there's a storm, the two little engines come to his rescue. In "Lady Hatt's Birthday Party", Sir Topham Hatt needs to prepare for his wife's birthday party. While he's getting ready however, disaster strikes. In "Double Teething Troubles", Bill and Ben need a new diesel to help out. Unfortunately, the diesel has teething troubles. In "Thomas, Percy, and Old Slow Coach", Thomas and Percy meet Old Slow Coach. She was about to get sent to the scrapyards. However, when the workman's hut gets destroyed in a fire, Thomas and Percy find a need for her. In "Busy Going Backwards", Toad is tired of going backwards. When some freight cars trick him and make him go forwards, he soon learns that it's O.K. to go backwards. In "A Better View for Gordon", Gordon brags about knowing everything. When he tests out a new station, he wants a panoramic view. During the grand opening, Gordon crashes into the wall and gets his "panoramic view". This is my favorite story of the 6. The video contains these six stories and the music video "Night Train".

This video is a great! It has all new stories:
Cranky Bugs: Cranky the Crane insults Thomas and Percy and calls them "annoying little bugs". But he is knocked over in a storm, so Thomas and Percy help him.
Lady Hatt's Birthday: Sir Topham Hatt tries to make it to his wife's birthday party, but keeps running into trouble!
Double Teething Troubles: Bill and Ben work with a diesel who has over heating problems.
Thomas, Percy & Old Slow Coach: Thomas and Percy save an old coach from scrap to replace a burned up workmens' hut; James gets stuck in a fire.
Busy Going Bacwards: Toad the Breakvan whishes to go forward, so the freight cars break away from Oliver to let him see what its like.
A Better View For Gordon: Gordon hates the new station and crashes through it's wall.
Baldwin has really outdone himself. The video introduces Cranky, Derek the Diesel, Old Slow Coach, and the Fire Engine.

This movie was produced outside of Laurel & Hardy's regular studio and is not quite up to par with their classics.

The Platinun Disc Corp. DVD is the best around, it is sharp and clear.

Another downright funny Stan Laurel-Oliver Hardy classic that will keep you laughing so hard you'll barely be able to watch the show. Ollie, heartbroken, drags Stan with him to the French Foreign Legion, where it quickly becomes clear that they weren't meant to be soldiers. Hardy ends up making a horse of himself. Funny scene: the boys try to fly an airplane (with predictable results).

This is one of those films that you will enjoy seeing as a child, but will understand better as an adult.

The airplane and soldier gags are quite hilarious. But there are interesting moments of pathos. For some reason, I was always touched by the scene where Hardy tells Laurel that without him, "People will wonder what you are" and Laurel begins to cry. The finale with Ollie as a reincarnated horse also strikes a note of whimsy, as well as Stan's dancing to Ollie's cheerful rendition to "Shine On Harvest Moon."

The Three Stooges give us belly laughs, but Laurel and Hardy have a more human quality that makes us smile.